Subscribe
Vancouver is in the same boat as Toronto. The Globe and Mail recently reported that the number of newly completed, unsold condominium suites in the city is expected to increase to 3,493 by the end of this year, which would be a 60% increase compared to the end of last year and one of the highest levels of unsold inventory in recent times.
The profound change, as we know, is that individual investors have largely left the market. Also in the article is some commentary from Ryan Berlin, who is head economist of Rennie Intelligence. According to Rennie's data, investors made up about 50% of their buyers from 2020 to 2023. In 2024, this number dropped to around 25%. And so far this year, the number is ~7%.
At the same time, the math is not mathing for developers:
Real estate appraiser David Eger, vice-president of Western Canada for Altus Group Ltd., gave the example of an older Vancouver apartment block within the Broadway Plan that is currently on the market for $12.2-million. To achieve a profit margin of 10 per cent of total costs to redevelop the site, the developer would have to pay drastically less, around $3-million for the property. That’s based on a rent of $5.50 per square foot, or $3,300 a month for a 600 square-foot unit.
In some ways, all of this is what housing critics wanted: "Too many speculative investors are buying new homes and outbidding actual end users." But now they're not. So where are all the end users? Aren't we in a housing crisis? This is the paradox of our current market. But I think the lesson is that a housing crisis does not necessarily equal a housing shortage in all segments of the market.
Another way to think about it is that the inventory that is now accumulating has lost product-market fit. The market used to be a lot of investors, but now it's not. So either the market needs to change again or the product needs to adapt to what the market wants today. And I suspect that, even in today's market, there would be strong demand for more affordable family-oriented housing.
The challenge is that our industry and our cost structures are not currently set up to deliver this kind of product. In software, it's relatively easy to pivot in search of product-market fit. But it's not so easy in real estate. Using the above example from appraiser David Eger, you'd need a negative land value (i.e. a subsidy) in order to be able to feasibly deliver more affordable family housing. That is, larger homes at a lower per square foot rent.
But I think this is how all city builders should be thinking right now. We should be viewing this point in the cycle as an opportunity. It's an opportunity to ask ourselves: what does the housing market want and how could we actually deliver it? Then it's time to get creative and figure out how to pivot our collective product. There are, of course, lots of levers we can pull.
Cover photo by Nate Foong on Unsplash
Pre-sales are a big part of many condominium markets. The way it typically works is that developers sell suites in their building before construction has even started and then uses those purchaser deposits (which are held in trust) to obtain a construction loan to actually build the building. Part of the reason this is done is that it, in theory, reduces speculative overbuilding.
The cost of a parking spot in downtown Toronto has reached as high as $60,000 (per stall) in some new construction projects. If you convert that to a per square foot price (which is typically how people measure condo prices), you’re looking at over $350 per square foot for that parking stall. Is it worth it?
Most cities around the world have what is called a parking minimum. This means that to build, say a new residential condo, developers need to provide a certain number of parking stalls. In Toronto, those minimums will depend on your unit mix. Bigger units have more stringent parking requirements.
In some cities, though it’s much rarer, they actually have parking maximums. Portland, for instance, has a maximum number of parking stalls that you’re allowed to build, which fluctuates based on the development’s proximity to transit.
And finally, there are some cities, such as Berlin, with no parking minimums or maximums at all. In those cases, the market dictates the number of parking stalls that should be built. If people want a parking spot with their apartment and won’t buy or rent it without one, then the developer builds it.
Though parking variances do happen in Toronto (for reasons such as proximity to transit), the city is generally skeptical of a market led approach to parking requirements. And there are a couple of reasons for that. They worry that investors might be buying the units (with no parking) and so the sales data may not be indicative of the end-user market.
The city also worries that developers might actively discourage purchasers from buying parking spots, as it’s usually more profitable not to build them. Underground parking is costly and often subsidized by the sale of the condo units themselves. In fact, I’ve heard of instances where underground parking has cost upwards of $100,000 per stall because of buoyancy forces and other technical details.
But I’m generally a free market guy. So I question if the market really isn’t capable of figuring out how much parking there truly needs to be. Undoubtedly, there will be families who demand 2 parking spots. I also bought a parking spot with my condo. But there may also be a number of people who would rather pay less for their home than subsidize a parking garage that they’ll rarely use.
And as I wrote in a recent post called, Is traffic the right question?, we could be losing sight of the greater goal. If we truly want to build a sustainable and livable city, then we should be considering how our development activity encourages transit usage over driving, and how we can promote a more balanced modal split across the city.
What are your thoughts? Would you buy a home without parking? Should we get rid of parking minimums, just as cities like Berlin have?
Vancouver is in the same boat as Toronto. The Globe and Mail recently reported that the number of newly completed, unsold condominium suites in the city is expected to increase to 3,493 by the end of this year, which would be a 60% increase compared to the end of last year and one of the highest levels of unsold inventory in recent times.
The profound change, as we know, is that individual investors have largely left the market. Also in the article is some commentary from Ryan Berlin, who is head economist of Rennie Intelligence. According to Rennie's data, investors made up about 50% of their buyers from 2020 to 2023. In 2024, this number dropped to around 25%. And so far this year, the number is ~7%.
At the same time, the math is not mathing for developers:
Real estate appraiser David Eger, vice-president of Western Canada for Altus Group Ltd., gave the example of an older Vancouver apartment block within the Broadway Plan that is currently on the market for $12.2-million. To achieve a profit margin of 10 per cent of total costs to redevelop the site, the developer would have to pay drastically less, around $3-million for the property. That’s based on a rent of $5.50 per square foot, or $3,300 a month for a 600 square-foot unit.
In some ways, all of this is what housing critics wanted: "Too many speculative investors are buying new homes and outbidding actual end users." But now they're not. So where are all the end users? Aren't we in a housing crisis? This is the paradox of our current market. But I think the lesson is that a housing crisis does not necessarily equal a housing shortage in all segments of the market.
Another way to think about it is that the inventory that is now accumulating has lost product-market fit. The market used to be a lot of investors, but now it's not. So either the market needs to change again or the product needs to adapt to what the market wants today. And I suspect that, even in today's market, there would be strong demand for more affordable family-oriented housing.
The challenge is that our industry and our cost structures are not currently set up to deliver this kind of product. In software, it's relatively easy to pivot in search of product-market fit. But it's not so easy in real estate. Using the above example from appraiser David Eger, you'd need a negative land value (i.e. a subsidy) in order to be able to feasibly deliver more affordable family housing. That is, larger homes at a lower per square foot rent.
But I think this is how all city builders should be thinking right now. We should be viewing this point in the cycle as an opportunity. It's an opportunity to ask ourselves: what does the housing market want and how could we actually deliver it? Then it's time to get creative and figure out how to pivot our collective product. There are, of course, lots of levers we can pull.
Cover photo by Nate Foong on Unsplash
Pre-sales are a big part of many condominium markets. The way it typically works is that developers sell suites in their building before construction has even started and then uses those purchaser deposits (which are held in trust) to obtain a construction loan to actually build the building. Part of the reason this is done is that it, in theory, reduces speculative overbuilding.
The cost of a parking spot in downtown Toronto has reached as high as $60,000 (per stall) in some new construction projects. If you convert that to a per square foot price (which is typically how people measure condo prices), you’re looking at over $350 per square foot for that parking stall. Is it worth it?
Most cities around the world have what is called a parking minimum. This means that to build, say a new residential condo, developers need to provide a certain number of parking stalls. In Toronto, those minimums will depend on your unit mix. Bigger units have more stringent parking requirements.
In some cities, though it’s much rarer, they actually have parking maximums. Portland, for instance, has a maximum number of parking stalls that you’re allowed to build, which fluctuates based on the development’s proximity to transit.
And finally, there are some cities, such as Berlin, with no parking minimums or maximums at all. In those cases, the market dictates the number of parking stalls that should be built. If people want a parking spot with their apartment and won’t buy or rent it without one, then the developer builds it.
Though parking variances do happen in Toronto (for reasons such as proximity to transit), the city is generally skeptical of a market led approach to parking requirements. And there are a couple of reasons for that. They worry that investors might be buying the units (with no parking) and so the sales data may not be indicative of the end-user market.
The city also worries that developers might actively discourage purchasers from buying parking spots, as it’s usually more profitable not to build them. Underground parking is costly and often subsidized by the sale of the condo units themselves. In fact, I’ve heard of instances where underground parking has cost upwards of $100,000 per stall because of buoyancy forces and other technical details.
But I’m generally a free market guy. So I question if the market really isn’t capable of figuring out how much parking there truly needs to be. Undoubtedly, there will be families who demand 2 parking spots. I also bought a parking spot with my condo. But there may also be a number of people who would rather pay less for their home than subsidize a parking garage that they’ll rarely use.
And as I wrote in a recent post called, Is traffic the right question?, we could be losing sight of the greater goal. If we truly want to build a sustainable and livable city, then we should be considering how our development activity encourages transit usage over driving, and how we can promote a more balanced modal split across the city.
What are your thoughts? Would you buy a home without parking? Should we get rid of parking minimums, just as cities like Berlin have?
Nobody really knows the exact number, but here in Toronto many suites within a new building often end up getting sold to investors. And in some locations and some buildings, it could be most suites.
On the one hand this is a good thing. Because in a way they provide the short-term money that gets new projects off the ground. And if they end up holding onto their suites, they also become landlords for new rental housing. Here in Toronto condos have been almost the only new rental stock built in this city for decades. (Purpose-built rental is now starting to come back though.)
But one of the potential negatives is that buildings could be getting designed more around investor needs as opposed to end user needs. And that is happening because many end users – particularly when it comes to larger suites – find it difficult to make such a big life decision 3-5 years out. Doing that means saying to yourself: Okay, I’m going to buy this 3 bedroom condo today because 4.5 years from now when it’s complete I expect to be married and have 1.5 kids. Life doesn’t always work that way.
We also have antiquated tax policies in Ontario that encourage the building of smaller suites. And I believe they should be modernized. (This topic deserves a dedicated post.)
So if we are to think of these condo suites as products, then you could say that there are two broad customer segments: the investor and the end user. There are obviously sub-segments within each, but let’s assume that those are the top of the funnel.
The challenge now facing developers creating new product is that the system we have put in place arguably privileges one customer segment over the other. And it’s a problem that is somewhat unique to the real estate industry because it takes so damn long to bring new supply to the market. (If you sell jets or yachts, maybe you have a similar problem.)
Now one way to solve this might be to create lots of flexibility in the product. That is, you could allow people to adjust and combine suites to fit their current needs. And that’s what great products do: they meet specific needs and solve problems. In this scenario, perhaps the single person could “add-on” to their suite as they enter a new life phase. And indeed, this is something people are experimenting with by way of things like “knockout panels.”
But the problems with this are twofold.
Firstly, this requires an adjacent and suitable suite to come on the market so that you can buy it. And that may not happen 6 months before the baby comes.
Secondly, most Toronto condominiums are built using something called shear walls. These are structural reinforced concrete walls that cannot be removed without compromising the integrity of the entire building. And most purchasers like these walls between them and their neighbors because they’re worried about noise. So combing suites isn’t always as straightforward as we might think. There are many constraints.
One way to mitigate these problems is through smaller projects. That reduces the lead time between purchase and occupancy. But I am sure there are probably other creative solutions that we could come up with to better align product and customer needs.
Nobody really knows the exact number, but here in Toronto many suites within a new building often end up getting sold to investors. And in some locations and some buildings, it could be most suites.
On the one hand this is a good thing. Because in a way they provide the short-term money that gets new projects off the ground. And if they end up holding onto their suites, they also become landlords for new rental housing. Here in Toronto condos have been almost the only new rental stock built in this city for decades. (Purpose-built rental is now starting to come back though.)
But one of the potential negatives is that buildings could be getting designed more around investor needs as opposed to end user needs. And that is happening because many end users – particularly when it comes to larger suites – find it difficult to make such a big life decision 3-5 years out. Doing that means saying to yourself: Okay, I’m going to buy this 3 bedroom condo today because 4.5 years from now when it’s complete I expect to be married and have 1.5 kids. Life doesn’t always work that way.
We also have antiquated tax policies in Ontario that encourage the building of smaller suites. And I believe they should be modernized. (This topic deserves a dedicated post.)
So if we are to think of these condo suites as products, then you could say that there are two broad customer segments: the investor and the end user. There are obviously sub-segments within each, but let’s assume that those are the top of the funnel.
The challenge now facing developers creating new product is that the system we have put in place arguably privileges one customer segment over the other. And it’s a problem that is somewhat unique to the real estate industry because it takes so damn long to bring new supply to the market. (If you sell jets or yachts, maybe you have a similar problem.)
Now one way to solve this might be to create lots of flexibility in the product. That is, you could allow people to adjust and combine suites to fit their current needs. And that’s what great products do: they meet specific needs and solve problems. In this scenario, perhaps the single person could “add-on” to their suite as they enter a new life phase. And indeed, this is something people are experimenting with by way of things like “knockout panels.”
But the problems with this are twofold.
Firstly, this requires an adjacent and suitable suite to come on the market so that you can buy it. And that may not happen 6 months before the baby comes.
Secondly, most Toronto condominiums are built using something called shear walls. These are structural reinforced concrete walls that cannot be removed without compromising the integrity of the entire building. And most purchasers like these walls between them and their neighbors because they’re worried about noise. So combing suites isn’t always as straightforward as we might think. There are many constraints.
One way to mitigate these problems is through smaller projects. That reduces the lead time between purchase and occupancy. But I am sure there are probably other creative solutions that we could come up with to better align product and customer needs.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
